518
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
518 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19102 readers
3402 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really hope this is true.
Any true "centrist" GOP person would have stayed away from Trump 8 years ago.
In America people who identify themselves as "centrist" usually have no strong opinions on anything. They might also be what we might call a traditional republican suddenly realizing they're surrounded by fascists.
Except the gray alien is Reagan.
No, Reagan was evil, not neutral.
Just like "centrist" Republicans.
But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.
I'd argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).
Yes but also no. There are many people who don't have strong political opinions. Sometimes they're misidentified as centrists. But there are people who have strongly held political positions that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Then, of course, there is center-left and center-right. They're still politically engaged, but don't have much patience for the policy proposals put forward by the far left and far right.
Honestly, that sounds like both sides foolishness with extra steps. How can you be politically engaged and still think there’s a middle ground between “kill all minorities” and “don’t do that”?
That's an obvious strawman argument. How about a spectrum between high taxes, generous social safety net and low taxes, skimpy social safety net? There are people with beliefs all along that spectrum. Of course, then there are people who want low taxes and a generous social safety net, but that's another matter.
I mean that literally describes "socially liberal fiscally conservative" morons. No tax! Only benefit!
That's the opposite of (genuine) fiscally conservatism, since it implies large fiscal deficits. Not that some fiscal deficits are inherently bad, they are widely misunderstood when used in a limited way.
I think centrist means “I am not a very thoughtful person, and I avoid any and all conflict even if avoiding the conflict hurts those around me more than dealing with the conflict directly would. If people I care about are affected by conflict I will blame the weaker of the two sides and avoid conflict further for short term gains.”
Someone needs to tell these women that they don't need permission from men anymore in order to vote the way they want.
As in 2016, he's not appealing to the centrists. He's letting the Dems do that. Dems go center, he picks up the anti-war and anti-government side of the Dems looking for a molotov cocktail to throw at the military industrial complex. Gabbard and RFK are an attempt to ruse enough of the left that is fed up with big government and big military. Trump in 2016 won because he was a molotov cocktail while Hillary took the center. In 2020, the primaries presented a progressive alternative that excited the base. 2024, the Dems have decided to revive Hilary's strategy of camping the center, folding to the military industrial complex, and disenfranchising their base; likewise Trump is playing the anti-establishment dove. Trump won in 2016 like that. Maybe fewer people will be tricked this time after seeing what happened last time he was in office? Or that's just wishful thinking.
It doesn't matter if he scares off the center. In spite of the strong start, I see Kamala lining up to lose this election by copying Hilary's strategy of collecting the center and establishment. It gives me the jitters. Dems need to run on a progressive path forward, not joyful ignorance while they stoke the fires of war. They need a platform that excites enough voters for downballot races. They need to stand up to the problems in our systems of governing that Trump is offering to burn down which might accelerate some sort of change before we die of ecosystem collapse. Clock is ticking, and the voters may decide we need a kick in the ass if the Dems decide to cozy up to the military like in 1968.
In general I'm in full agreement, but the fact that Biden stepped aside and they picked Walz as the VP gives me the perception that the Democratic Party is at least acknowledging the existence of the left. They absolutely need to triple or even quadruple down on progressive policies while Harris is in office though*, or we'll be in the exact same position in four years, except with a competent speaker for the GOP instead of the Toupee.
*And not just in the last few months before the next election.
I’m not voting for her unless there is a permanent cease fire that Tuesday night. She has until 6:59 pm.
While I agree with you, it shouldn't be forgotten that Hilary still had the popular vote. I think the Dem.s will still win due to Harris not being as hated as Hilary, likely better campaigning than Hilary, Trump being an abysmally bad candidate (just in terms of general political competency, regardless of his beliefs/positions; I think them winning will continue people not taking that point seriously enough), and Harris actually being able to bring out black (and, I would wager, Indian) voters.
I don't think that black people were necessarily excited about Hilary but they absolutely are about Harris. I think they can likely win like this; it won't be a landslide but it'll be O. K.
I agree with what you think they ought to be doing (I want to push the Overton window leftward and going back to the center after it's been pushed so much leftward over the last 8 years is both frustrating and bad policy) but I think Kamala has a bunch more shoring up than Hilary did. I also think it's going to convince Dem.s that this is the way to win; if Kamala continues to govern from the center rather than like her voting record in the Senate, I think we get the same rush to neoliberalism Clinton ushered in. But I'm hoping otherwise.
I don’t know why you’re being down voted this is a legit concern